In Reply to MS - The Final Chapter

[Guest guest]

MS,

 

I hear all that you're saying, and you have every right to say it.

But I must respectfully yet vociferously disagree with your take on

Jyotish; many jyotishis in the past have engaged in the most vigorous

debate over doctrinal and philosophical matters, and very often in

much harsher tones than I have ever taken up with Mr. Kincaid. I can

cite the sources for you, if you're so inclined.

 

So, with that fact - and others I have mentioned over the course of

these letters, said - the notion or idea that "everyone's take is

cool" is NOT correct. Your example of citing Buddha/ism (which is

almost wholly a non-Indian thing for centuries) runs contraparallel

to even some of its own tenets. For example, the idea of attachment -

no real Buddhist would go along with the notion that an over-

attachment to anything was cool. Or that certain ways of thinking

that don't fall in line with the concept of "right action" is OK. The

point I'm making MS, is that there are indeed rules, principles that

guide us as to the right and wrong way of doing things. Jyotish is

based on those sets of principles, and there's no need for a seminar

on this, no need for a special spy decoder ring - the sources I've

cited earlier, says it all, and again I maintain that any serious

Vedic astrologer has to have at the very least a rudimentary

knowledge of the classical sources. I submit that Mark Kincaid's work

does not fall in line with said classics, and by extension cannot be

said to reflect Jyotish at its core. What we can say is that

Kincaid's work has some Jyotish "flavor" if by that is meant that it

has some elements of Jyotish running thru it. But it is not Jyotish

in the sense that the late BV Raman or KN Rao would recognize it.

 

My reasoning for mentioning any of this at all here is because

Kincaid put out his initial writings here and elsewhere, and I

responded to same here and elsewhere. And I don't need to "harp" on

anything I've done - I was merely replying to your suggestion that I

have contributed nothing. With the Net at the fingertips of so many -

you included I might add - it only takes a few seconds to see what I

have contributed to the world of Vedic astrology. That you seemingly

have refused to do so says alot about your own sincerity in this

regard, because if you really wanted to know what I'm all about you

would have tapped a few keys by now. Hmm.

 

What I'm defending against is the notion that, again, that anything

can mean anything, that rules don't matter, that tradition doesn't

count, and that you can come up with your rules anytime you feel like

it. What I'm doing is alerting people to the very real fact that

there ALOT of people out there doing all kinds of stuff that is not

part of the Jyotish canon. Yes, the Truth needs no defence, but

people need to know that it IS out there. And waiting to be heard.

 

Now, if that makes me a waster of my time, I would counter that

seeing to it that people have accurate info is time well spent.

 

Someday, when you have learned the essence and history of Jyotish,

you will see the importance of my letters of late; that day, if and

when it comes, will be a great one indeed.

 

Salaam,

Mu

[Guest guest]

All your logic and theories on one side and positivity, respect and

acceptance on the other.

My mails are only a suggestion to you to be positive. Your choice of

the path is entirely up to u.

I see that you have put some articles after this mail. I really

appreciate that and will definitely read them. I hope u will post

more articles in future. Also, when I get time, I will tap a few

keys, like u suggested and read more of your work.

Namaste

MS

 

, "MuMin Bey" <mumin_bey>

wrote:

> MS,

>

> I hear all that you're saying, and you have every right to say it.

> But I must respectfully yet vociferously disagree with your take on

> Jyotish; many jyotishis in the past have engaged in the most

vigorous

> debate over doctrinal and philosophical matters, and very often in

> much harsher tones than I have ever taken up with Mr. Kincaid. I

can

> cite the sources for you, if you're so inclined.

>

> So, with that fact - and others I have mentioned over the course of

> these letters, said - the notion or idea that "everyone's take is

> cool" is NOT correct. Your example of citing Buddha/ism (which is

> almost wholly a non-Indian thing for centuries) runs contraparallel

> to even some of its own tenets. For example, the idea of

attachment -

> no real Buddhist would go along with the notion that an over-

> attachment to anything was cool. Or that certain ways of thinking

> that don't fall in line with the concept of "right action" is OK.

The

> point I'm making MS, is that there are indeed rules, principles

that

> guide us as to the right and wrong way of doing things. Jyotish is

> based on those sets of principles, and there's no need for a

seminar

> on this, no need for a special spy decoder ring - the sources I've

> cited earlier, says it all, and again I maintain that any serious

> Vedic astrologer has to have at the very least a rudimentary

> knowledge of the classical sources. I submit that Mark Kincaid's

work

> does not fall in line with said classics, and by extension cannot

be

> said to reflect Jyotish at its core. What we can say is that

> Kincaid's work has some Jyotish "flavor" if by that is meant that

it

> has some elements of Jyotish running thru it. But it is not Jyotish

> in the sense that the late BV Raman or KN Rao would recognize it.

>

> My reasoning for mentioning any of this at all here is because

> Kincaid put out his initial writings here and elsewhere, and I

> responded to same here and elsewhere. And I don't need to "harp" on

> anything I've done - I was merely replying to your suggestion that

I

> have contributed nothing. With the Net at the fingertips of so

many -

> you included I might add - it only takes a few seconds to see what

I

> have contributed to the world of Vedic astrology. That you

seemingly

> have refused to do so says alot about your own sincerity in this

> regard, because if you really wanted to know what I'm all about you

> would have tapped a few keys by now. Hmm.

>

> What I'm defending against is the notion that, again, that anything

> can mean anything, that rules don't matter, that tradition doesn't

> count, and that you can come up with your rules anytime you feel

like

> it. What I'm doing is alerting people to the very real fact that

> there ALOT of people out there doing all kinds of stuff that is not

> part of the Jyotish canon. Yes, the Truth needs no defence, but

> people need to know that it IS out there. And waiting to be heard.

>

> Now, if that makes me a waster of my time, I would counter that

> seeing to it that people have accurate info is time well spent.

>

> Someday, when you have learned the essence and history of Jyotish,

> you will see the importance of my letters of late; that day, if and

> when it comes, will be a great one indeed.

>

> Salaam,

> Mu